IL2/H - Skipton Road east

Object

Representation ID: 28079

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Emma Williams

The allocation of green belt sites when other brown field sites are available is in contravention of national planning policy.
Furthermore, if the Council has undertaken sequential testing correctly, it is wholly inconceivable that the above sites would have been prioritised or even deemed appropriate for residential development on this scale.
Of particular concern, the drainage infrastructure (flooding), impact on green belt environment, highway network (including safety) and schooling provision within Ben Rhydding and Ilkley undermine the allocations.
I request that the Council promote alternative sites that are more sustainable and accord with national planning policy.

Object

Representation ID: 28178

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Emma Roe

Green Belt should preserve existing natural habitats for future generations and prevent urban sprawl.
Development permissions and carbon-intensive activities is laughably hypocritical in light of BMDC's declaration of a climate emergency and commitment to a green economy.
Insufficient consideration has been given to resurrecting brownfield sites.
Green Belt - what point is there to such a classification if it can be so easily over-ridden,
The retention of key characteristics of Ilkley as a rural community and town, which incorporates outlooks of fields and key green spaces throughout the town's landscape
The impact on the climate emergency we all face collectively means it is irresponsible to future generations for us to consider planning proposals without recognition of the use of precious resources in development of new buildings. We must look to utilise our resources with more emphasis on a re-use, recycle and redevelop approach in order to meet our climate change commitments rather than repeatedly considering housing needs as only being met by new build developments.

Impact on historical railway sidings and long-established mature trees.

Significant transport impact as regards access to/from Ilkley's main through-route, the A65.

Impact on Nidderdale AONB

Object

Representation ID: 28242

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Green belt should not be considered for development as it is in contravention to Governments aims and objectives.
Local Authorities should maximise the use of brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
There are no exceptional circumstances to justify releasing sites from Green Belt protection. All other reasonable options to meet housing need should be considered.
Inadequate proposals have been presented with regards to upgrading local infrastructure to cope with proposed extra housing. and extra pressures on local services.
There is no clear vision to increase passenger capacity on local public transport. This is in contravention to the Governments Decarbonising Transport strategic priority.
No justification for the proposed housing numbers identified for Ilkley and Ben Rhydding to warrant removal of areas of Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 28367

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Dennis

Number of people: 2

We would like to record that we have no objection to any of the proposed developments in llkley IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, IL4/H.

We think it would be beneficial to the age and social mix in the town to have at least some sites (or sections of sites) designated for social housing. What are the plans for this, please?

Object

Representation ID: 28370

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: A D Walbank

The proposals do not in accord with the draft Ilkley neighbourhood plan.
Green belt should only be considered in exceptional circumstances.
The proposals will exacerbate the overloaded infrastructure.
Traffic congestion on A65 and the roundabout at the east of Ilkley at Burley.

The access to IL2/H is on the north side of the A65 a very busy section of road. This will cause more congestion for traffic from Addingham on the A65 as there is no alternative access to Ilkley. Drainage again will flow directly into the river Wharfe which will cause more raw sewage to overflow into the river as the water treatment works cannot cater for existing dwellings.
Ilkley has now reached a saturation point with new houses.
Parking issue, roads are permanently lined with cars on both sides.
Schools are oversubscribed.
Many shops are empty as the rates are too high.
Outdoor spaces are overwhelmed with visitors in hot weather.
Developments need to use brownfield sites first nearer the centres of employment to reduce the need for travel.
Impacts for visitors to Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 28378

Received: 25/03/2021

Respondent: David Blackburn

The appraisal leads me to come to the opposite conclusion that the site is unsustainable and does not comply with the findings of 5.0.1 & 5.0.2. An inconsistency in the section suggests both 20 and 30 houses on the site? Either way the amount of extra traffic generated accessing the A65 on a long corner would be a safety issue. If developed this site should have the old railway line protected as a footpath / cycleway to take users away from the A65 on this busy corner.

Object

Representation ID: 28398

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Karen Leafe

I wish to object to the proposed plan to build a substantial number of houses in Ilkley reference numbers IL1/H IL2/H IL3/H and IL4/H.

There isn't the infrastructure to maintain these homes.

The plan would make significant changes to our town.

Object

Representation ID: 28402

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Shirin Borrett

There are so many brownfield sites available in the Bradford District - why is the council even contemplating building in our ever diminishing Greenbelt!

How can they allow development of our green spaces. It is essential for everyone's wellbeing, that we keep our countryside and don't allow the urban sprawl to take over! Ilkley is a beautiful town set in the countryside that contributes significantly to Bradford both financially and by providing countryside for people to enjoy.

If over 300 homes were built, the town does not have the infrastructure to support the people who would live there. Ilkley Grammar school is bursting at its seams and primary schools are full. The surgery is very busy and does not have the capability to service another 300 households!

The developments will be very damaging to the environment and, with climate change, will increase the problems with flooding in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 28408

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Julian Carter

• Greenbelt
Building on green belt sites is directly opposed to the principles of using brownfield sites first, and of urban regeneration via the recycling and repurposing of derelict land or buildings

• Environment
Building on the Greenbelt will have a number of direct and indirect consequences on the environment. The area itself has mature trees (with TPO) and an abundance of plant and wild flower species. In addition, there will be an increase in noise pollution and use of cars, reduced biodiversity

• Flooding
There is already substantial flooding within Ilkley and further run off from hard surfaces will only exacerbate the problem

• School and activities capacity
Local amenities are already at breaking point and cannot cope with the additional proposed housing

• Additional Building
In the last few years approximately 30 houses per year have been built in Ilkley – the plan fails to take into account these numbers, or those currently planned.

Support

Representation ID: 28484

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Colm McCann

I support the proposed site on Skipton road as this is an area of wasteland however I would hope that an access along the former railway line could be retained to allow future provision for an Ilkley to Addingham Greenway.

Comment

Representation ID: 28613

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY
Mitigation should be set above the 1 in 100 plus cc level for the site as suitable for the proposed vulnerability classification (EA standing advice should cover this).

If the site is considered Greenfield then surface water discharge rates post development should be restricted to the pre development Greenfield discharge rate. If the site is considered Brownfield then there should be a 30% reduction in surface water discharges, or restricted to Greenfield rates, there should be no increase in brownfield surface water discharge rates post development. So as to support prevention of cumulative increases to flood risk and should be in line with SuDs design principles.

For developments near ordinary watercourses we would recommend an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts, to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. A Flood Defence Consent may be required for the LLFA for works in/affecting an ordinary watercourse.

For main rivers, we generally require an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. Environmental Flood Risk Activity Permits may be required for development near rivers.

It is possible the sites within close proximity to Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 may be subject to future risk identified within the SFRA (to follow) which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 29041

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Anne & H Graham Peacock

Number of people: 2

This site is in green belt but is in very poor condition – nothing grows on a large part of it. Access is straight onto the A65 Skipton Road and the junction would need to be carefully designed. Substantial earthworks, the remains of a railway embankment, dominate the site and would need removal to create level plots.

The line of the railway embankment through this site should be reserved for the Greenway en route to Addingham.

It is the only one of the four sites which might be considered as ‘brownfield’.

Comment

Representation ID: 29124

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Cherry Dexter

Number of people: 2

We do not object to the proposed allocation of these two sites for housing as they are small sites in amongst existing housing

Object

Representation ID: 29265

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nicole Dillon

Oppose proposed development around Burley in Wharfedale, Ben Rhydding, Ilkley & Addingham.

1. More needs to be invested in infrastructure to support increased population

• Ilkley Grammar School (the only secondary) is already full as are the primary schools

• Roads are busy and parking is a big problem – without proper provision roads will become blocked due to on-street parking. More traffic will see traffic jams increase, which is a safety issue as well as an environmental problem.

• Doctors/Dentists are busy. Development will lead to more patients, longer waiting times etc.

• Problem with sewage in the River Wharfe. Sewage sites overflow regularly. Development will make this worse.

2. Green Belt development should be a last resort. Will impact on wildlife. Available brownfield sites should be developed first.

3. Development will significantly/permanently change the area’s character. Coutances Way site will see Burley almost merging with Ben Rhydding/Ilkley.

Other considerations include flood risk.

Object

Representation ID: 29422

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is located adjacent to Hollin Hall Farm House and outbuilding, both of which are Grade II listed Buildings. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets.
See attachment for full representation.
Before allocating this site for development:
(1) An assessment needs to be undertaken of the contribution which this site makes to those elements which contribute towards the significance of the Listed Buildings in its vicinity, and what impact the loss of this undeveloped site and its subsequent development might have upon their significance.
(2) If it is considered that the development of this site would harm elements which contribute to the significance of the Listed Buildings, then the measures by which that harm might be removed or reduced need to be effectively tied into the Plan.
(3) If, at the end of the process, it is concluded that the development would still be likely to harm elements which contribute to the significance of these Listed Buildings, then this site should not be allocated unless there are clear public benefits that outweigh the harm (as is
required by NPPF, Paragraph 195 or 196).

Object

Representation ID: 29533

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth & Tim Walton

Number of people: 2

1) GREEN BELT
Proposals through Keighley and area district which is against Government and Bradford Council Green Belt and Zero Carbon Future policies resulting in sprawl, loss of identity, damage to wildlife, loss of natural views loss of green habitat and wildlife, pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 29552

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P A Smith

- IL2/H Skipton Road
This area as entering a major road will cause more accidents especially if crossing road to go in the Skipton direction. This area would be better as a cycle path as many bike riders hold up the flow of traffic on this stretch of road to the by-pass.

What Ilkley needs is less cars not more. The permit areas for workers is already having an impact for people living outside the permit area as traffic is moving out of Ilkley to side roads and causing distress to households when they cannot park outside their own houses.
Bradford never tries to help Ilkley, all it wants is the money from the rates and gives us nothing in return. The amenities cannot cope in the area for any more houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 29675

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Morpeth

Although technically within Green Belt, in light of the nature of site location, former use and current aesthetic appearance we have no specific comments or reason to object to development of this site.

Object

Representation ID: 29686

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Tracy Russell

•This site has a particularly large number of mature trees along its boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 29785

Received: 25/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Town Council

Object with some positives

A number of detailed comments are made regarding - see submission for full details.

Key areas of concern:

Exceptional reasons must be shown for Green Belt release NPPF

Traffic congestion along the A65 can be difficult causing noise and increased air pollution.

Walking into town facilities will be along a main road for at least part of the journey (maybe 1km)

Positives include:

This land has been cordoned off for many years. It would make sense to start development.

This site lies on the A65. Presuming that the access can be made safe, this therefore presents no problems for vehicular access. It lies close to buses on the Keighley and Skipton routes. However it lies 1600M from Ilkley station.

Comment

Representation ID: 29800

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Civic Society

This small site is in green belt but is in very poor condition – nothing grows on a large part of it. Access is straight onto the A65 Skipton Road and the junction would need to be carefully designed. Substantial earthworks, the remains of the former railway embankment dominate the site and would need removal to render the area habitable.

We suggest that the line of the railway embankment through this site is reserved for the Greenway en route to Addingham.

Comment

Representation ID: 29986

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Town Council

If access onto the A65 is safe for pedestrians and cyclists I have no objection to this development going ahead.